................................................................................
ON THE RECORD
ANN TAYLOR INTERVIEW
RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 1.6.97
................................................................................
JOHN HUMPHRYS: Politicians are held generally in ever
lower esteem by the great British public. And so is Parliament. Its job, if
it's done properly, is to pass laws that work and to keep an eye on what the
Government is doing so that it doesn't get too big for its boots. It's been
doing neither very well for a long time now. Hence the Government's decision
to set up this week a new committee to "modernise" the way Parliament works.
It'll be chaired by the Leader of the House of Commons Ann Taylor. And she
joins us down the line now. Hello Mrs Taylor.
ANN TAYLOR: Hello.
HUMPHRYS: Labour has said for years now that the
executive, the Government is too unaccountable. Is that one of the reasons for
this new committee?
TAYLOR: It's one of the reasons but there's also
the problem that a lot of the legislation that has been passed in recent years
hasn't been of a very good quality. It's very often been the case that
Parliament has passed legislation and then a couple of years later had to go
back to it and amend it simply because the Government of the day wasn't willing
to listen to even constructive criticism. And what we want to do is to
acknowledge that there are areas where there are straight forward political
disagreement and those measures are not things that we can deal with in a
different way from that that we do at the moment. But there are some problems
where if we had a different approach to legislation, if we had Government
ministers being willing to listen, to try to develop some consensus towards the
problem, then in fact we're more likely to get that legislation right.
HUMPHRYS: So what you're saying is that as they
stand now, the powers that Parliament has to scrutinise and to hold Government
accountable are not sufficient.
TAYLOR: I think that very often there are things
that Parliament could do but doesn't do. But there's a bigger problem than this
and Parliament's main job is actually to pass legislation which I think
requires an obligation that that legislation should be workable. Too often, in
the past, we have not been able to do that. Now that's been partly the fault
of the Government of the day, who, after they'd been in office for so long
thought that they had the answer to every problem and the monopoly and wisdom.
and therefore, were not willing to listen to any ideas that didn't orginate
with themselves. But it's also partly been that Parliament is very much geared
up to political point scoring rather than constructive discussion and
constructive debate and I think there are many areas where we could adopt a
different approach. And indeed, we've already said that we will produce some
draft Bills, some legislation in draft form, consult more widely and then
decide how to proceed. And we've done this on some quite important issues,
such as freedom of information, tobacco advertising, even the Food Standards
Agency where we've got some idea of the direction in which we want to go but we
want to make sure that it works properly and therefore we're willing to take
time out to say: right, let's involve more people than usual, let's consult,
let's make sure that when we pass that legislation it really addresses the
problems that are there and it really will make a contribution to making sure
those problems don't arise in the future.
HUMPHRYS: Ann, you mentioned a couple of Bills
there, a couple of areas there. Would this apply to all Bills, including the
Devolution Bill that's coming up?
TAYLOR: Well I think what you've got to do is
look at each Bill on its merits and see what's most appropriate for that Bill.
What I would say is not that there should be a series of hurdles for each
individual Bill but that some Bills should be dealt with in one way and some in
another. For example, if you have a Bill that is not fantastically politically
controversial, then maybe you should do what we've done with the Food Standards
Agency and have a White Paper, have consultation, have a draft Bill, maybe have
a committee looking at it at that stage and then move to actually writing the
legislation. Where you've got a straight forward political confrontation,
then there's no point in going down that route because the political
confrontation is so much of a head-on situation that you're not actually going
to improve the quality of legislation by taking time out, because the
differences are just too basic.
HUMPHRYS: Shouldn't it - it's interesting you use
the language of 'hurdles'. I mean shouldn't the question be not how
confrontational..controversial they are, but how technical they are. Shouldn't
that be the key factor?
TAYLOR: It's one factor but it's not the only
factor. And the real question is, if we adopt different methods can we
actually improve the quality of the legislation that goes through. The example
that I used in the debate last week, and I think it's a good one, is the Child
Support Agency. Everybody in Parliament agreed that both parents should be
responsible for the bringing up of their child, should contribute to what was
needed and yet we have legislation there that was flawed right from the
beginning, simply because the Government put its head down, said that it had
got the answers and then we found out later that it hadn't. Had we had a
different committee system, more scrutiny, less resistance from the Government,
maybe less points scoring from the opposition, then we might have had
legislation which could work first time off, rather than wasting Parliament's
time and coming back and having to look at that legislation time and time
again.
HUMPHRYS: Alright. Let's have a look then at the
whole question of accountability. Of the accountability of ministers, the
Government, the Prime Minister to Parliament. The Prime Minister, take him
first, has obviously enormous power, he can appoint all sorts of people,
thousands of different people, some hugely important positions, the Governor of
the Bank of England for instance, the regulators of the big utilities. Are you
happy with that, shouldn't Parliament have some say over that, some oversight?
TAYLOR: Well we've already gone on record as
saying that we think that the Select Committee system is a good one and that we
should look to develop it. There has been discussion about the role of Select
Committees and whether in fact they should have a ratification role on some of
the senior appointments. That I think is something that the new committee can
look at because there could be a role there for Select Committees on an
extended basis. Select Committees have worked, they do hold ministers to
account. Ministers have not always been forthcoming but I would hope that in
the future we'll have less of that particular problem.
HUMPHRYS: Yeah, but let's stay for a moment with
this question of vetting some senior appointments. You would be quite happy,
the Government would be quite happy if this committee that you're setting up
said yes, Select Committees should have a role in approving or otherwise, the
Prime Minister's recommendation for, let's say the new Governor of the Bank of
England, you've be happy with that?
TAYLOR: Well Gordon Brown has already said that
that is something that he thinks the..a Select...Treasury Select Committee
could look at and he'd be quite happy with this issue being considered. That
doesn't mean that we go down that line and we've reached a decision. Part of
the purpose of having a committee to look at modernisation is to try to get
some kind of agreement about where we should be going. And I'm not going to
sit on that committee with a blueprint for what Parliament should be doing in
the future. I'll come up with ideas but it's for the committee to make
recommendations and at the end of the day, for Parliament to decide. But there
are areas there where we have indicated we want greater openness, greater
scrutiny and greater transparency. Let me just give you another example. Very
often the heads of agencies have said to Select Committees that they can't go
and give evidence because the minister has said that everything has got to go
through the minister. On other occasions the minister has said he's not going
to give evidence to a Select Committee, they should go to the agency head. And
you can go round in circles like that. Really what we need is a new framework,
so that all Select Committees know exactly who they should be going to, but
incidentially so should individual backbench MPs because when it comes to
tabling Parliamentary questions, we sometimes have the same problems.
HUMPHRYS: And, if the Committee says : we want to
call the head of that agency before us to answer our questions, it will have
the power so to do?
TAYLOR: Well, what I'm saying is, there should
be a new framework - and that new framework should agree and set down rules as
to where Ministers should be responsible and where the a head of the agency
should go directly. As I say, we have the same problem on Questions because
sometimes, in the past, under the Tories, Ministers have refused to answer a
question about an agency and yet the head of the agency has said: ah, this is
Ministerial policy. And, we've got to have some clarity there and a new
framework.
It's not something that can be done
overnight but we've got to develop it and set out the basic approach that
Members of Parliament, as well as members of the public can see brings
openness, brings transparency and brings better scrutiny in the future.
HUMPHRYS: But, effectively, the days of Ministers
behaving in a cavalier fashion towards these Select Committees, towards MPs are
gone?
TAYLOR: Well, I think, we've already seen from
Question Time, including Prime Minister's Question Time, a more serious
attitude on the part of Ministers. They have been very serious in the answers
that they have been given-giving in Parliament. They have been saying that
they're wanting to take issues on board. They haven't just been engaging-
HUMPHRYS: Ah, but that's a different point, that's
where they-
TAYLOR: - that's important.
HUMPHRYS: Yes, but they have a choice in that..So
far, that's looking alright, you say. But, what I'm saying is that in future:
even if they don't want to do it, they're gonna have no choice. There will be
a system in place that means they've got to do it. They've gotta be
accountable, they gotta answer reasonable questions.
TAYLOR: I think, they have to be accountable; I
think, they have to answer reasonable questions.
HUMPHRYS: Right.
TAYLOR: And, we need to have a new framework
that defines how that should work in practice.
HUMPHRYS: Now, one of their problems, they would
say - they do say - is they simply don't have the resources, at the moment. If
they want to look at the work that the Ministries, the different Departments
are doing, they don't have the resources. They may have a senior clerk and,
perhaps, a couple of youngsters helping him, or her, and that's it. I mean, we
spend more money on military bands than we do helping our Select Committees to
do their job. Is that gonna change? Give them more resources?
TAYLOR: Well, I don't think you should be so
disparaging about Select Committees.
HUMPHRYS: Well it's not me, it's them.
TAYLOR: No, but many-
HUMPHRYS: It's what they say.
TAYLOR: Well, many of them have done quite
significant work in the past. Now, I think, there's general agreement that
this system of Select Committees works. How it can be improved needs to be
looked at and addressed as well. But, I don't think that those people who
have served on Select Committees in the past have, actually, felt that they
were too constrained by resources.
HUMPHRYS: Well, plenty of them have told me that
they are.
TAYLOR: Sorry?
HUMPHRYS: Plenty of them have told me that they
are - very constrained, indeed.
TAYLOR: No. I don't-
HUMPHRYS: -...properly.
TAYLOR: -think that is the case. We've not
found them jumping up and down for more resources. There's been a question as
to whether the Chairs of Select Committees should actually be paid for their
extra responsibility - something that I, personally, am not fantastically keen
on. I do think that they need the resources that they should have to carry out
their work. But, really, it's a very hands on job - being on a Select
Committee. Members have got to read the papers themselves, Members have got to
keep up with the work themselves. And, in those areas, where that has
happened, I think, Select Committees have been one of the successes of the last
year. Although, obviously, we've all got to acknowledge that their reports
have not always had the-
HUMPHRYS: Ah!
TAYLOR: -debate and time that everybody would
like.
HUMPHRYS: Absolutely. I was gonna ask you about
that. Are you going to say that in future they will be debated. Some of them
are just dumped in the bin and forgotten about.
TAYLOR: Well, some of them are more important
than others and, I think, it is important that anything that is significant
should be found a slot if at all possible. We've now got a situation where
some Parliamentary time is reserved for Select Committtee reports on the
Wednesday morning ever so often. And, the topics for discussion are not chosen
by the Government. They're actually chosen by a Backbench Committee and I
think that's something we can look at and that's something we can build on and
we can assess whether there is sufficient time there, or whether we should
build in more of those slots. So, that more of those-
HUMPHRYS: Do you favour that?
TAYLOR: -reports can actually be discussed.
HUMPHRYS: Do you favour that, do you? More time?
TAYLOR: Well, I think, you can only have more
time on one item, if you have less on another. And, I do favour looking at
the balance of Parliamentary timetable. For example, the amount of time we
spend on set piece debates, the Queen's Speech, the Budget, the annual debates
on a whole range of topics-
HUMPHRYS: Ah!
TAYLOR: -which, very often, are not well
attended. Whether, perhaps, we should be looking to curtail some of those and,
perhaps, find more time for other things, such as Select Committee Reports.
That might be one case that we can look at.
HUMPHRYS: You mention the Budget there. It does
seem daft, doesn't it - some people say anyway - that at the end of the year,
in the Autumn, we have everything jammed together - the Budget and the Queen's
Speech; that all of that entails and everything. Makes sense to shift the
Budget? We gather that Gordon Brown's thinking about it - back to Spring?
TAYLOR: Well, this year it isn't a problem
because, obviously-
HUMPHRYS: No, I'm thinking about next year, now -
yah.
TAYLOR: -the Parliamentary Year started early.
But, in many years, it's a very, very real problem because Parliament usually
goes back in October/November. You have the Queen's Speech, which takes up
either six Parliamentary days, followed very quickly by the Budget, which takes
up another five or six Parliamentary days. It means that Bills that are going
to be introduced start late and, very often, can't have their Second Readings
before Christmas and it does cause congestion in the Parliamentary Year later.
So, I do think it's something we have to examine and try to make sure that we
pace the Parliamentary Year better, so that we don't have lulls and times when
there's not much happening and, then, a mad rush in June/July, so that
everything has got to be passed at the last minute.
HUMPHRYS: So-So, we might go back to a Spring
Budget - that's a possibility?
TAYLOR: Well, I think, all of these things are
up for consideration - yes.
HUMPHRYS: Right. Just before we leave the Select
Committees, by the way: you talked about scrutiny, about accountability of
Ministers and all that kind of thing and, possibly, being able to vet some
senior appointments. What about the honour system because a lot of people
argue that MPs should have some say over who gets what Honours as well -
certainly, at the top end of the scale. Would you look at that?
TAYLOR: Well, I haven't considered that at
all. MPs are allowed to nominate people in the same way that a wide range of
other people are. It hasn't been something that I, personally, have given much
thought too. But, if anybody comes up with positive suggestions I'm sure that
they can be looked at.
HUMPHRYS: Ought there to be a sort of department
of the Opposition, as it were? So that they are helped to do what you found,
sometimes when you were in Opposition, quite difficult to do?
TAYLOR: Being in Opposition is a very
significant responsibility and, I think, that a lot of work goes on that people
don't quite appreciate. Having a Department of the Opposition is one of the
ideas that has been put forward and there are some advantages; there are
disadvantages as well because whilst it was allowed for interchange - perhaps,
between Civil Servants, so that they could understand how an Opposition worked
- it might be that the politicians who are in Opposition felt that they didn't
have sufficient choice of who the people who were working for them were.
I think, this area has to be looked at
but it's got to be looked at in a slightly different context as well, because,
of course, in a way, it relates to the funding of political Parties. At the
moment, we do have funding of Opposition Parties - what's often called the
'short money' - and that has paid for researchers for the Opposition Parties,
for a good number of years no. We're going to go into negotiations about that
money for this Parliament. Obviously, the balance on the Opposition side will
be up for discussion because now that the official Opposition - the Tories -
are so small, relatively - compared with..in the last Parliament, the balance
of the Opposition. The minority Parties are, obviously, going to be making a
case for their position. So, I think, we should be looking at these things but
it's very difficult to look at them in isolation from all the other items that
have to be on the agenda as well.
HUMPHRYS: You mentioned the Civil Service in that
answer. Now, a lot of people are worried that what you are doing is beginning
to politicise the Civil Service, of going much further down that road than has
happened before. We're seeing an awful lot of political appointments in areas
where Civil Servants used to do the job, and the Civil Service Commissioner Sir
Michael Brett is worried about that. Are you going to stop it?
TAYLOR: Well, let's just get this into
perspective, because there's been a lot of speculation about a lot of political
appointments...
HUMPHRYS: Not speculation, we've seen you doing
it.
TAYLOR:L ... but no-one has actually seen the
final numbers, and in fact the Prime Minister is answering a question on this
at the moment, but lets's also.....
HUMPHRYS: We've got double the number of political
appointees in Number Ten Downing Street that we had before you came into power,
that's one number.
TAYLOR: Well, I don't think there's been a
fantastic increase. I think you've got to get it into perspective, and just
remember what Sir Michael Brett said. What he actually said was that he was
not worried at this stage.
HUMPHRYS: No. He said there shouldn't be any more.
TAYLOR: No, what he said was, if there were to
be hordes more, and I don't think that anybody is suggesting that there should
be hordes more. He said he wasn't worried at this stage by the appointments
that have taken place so far, so I think that all of this is somewhat
speculative and not really a real issue. Yes, there have to be advisors, yes,
there has to be a role for advisors and they've got to know what they're doing,
and we've got to know what's political and what's Civil Service, but I think
the guidelines are there and the guidelines are pretty clear.
HUMPHRYS: But I mean having a political advisor as
the private secretary to the Prime Minister, Jonathan Powell, instead of a
Civil Servant as it has been in the past, that is a worrying development.
Every single thing that goes to the Prime Minister goes through his hands.
He's in a position of immense power and influence, and he's not a Civil
Servant.
TAYLOR: But it is a very political role. You've
just said that everything - everything that goes to the Prime Minister goes
through his hands.
HUMPHRYS: He vets everything he sees, yeah.
TAYLOR: That is a political role. What I think
is happening there in Number Ten is that there's a redefining of roles. Some
of the things that the principle private secretary used to do in the past have
been separated off and are going to be done by somebody else, and the political
side, and the political side is important remember, goes through Jonathan
Powell. Jonathan Powell has been Tony Blair's chief of staff for some time
now...
HUMPHRYS: Yes, but I mean....
TAYLOR: And I don't see why going into
government you can't transfer that situation.
HUMPHRYS: Yes, but I mean on that basis half the
people who run departments and heaven knows what in the Civil Service will be
slung out and replaced by political appointees.
TAYLOR: No they wouldn't. What we're talking
about is what you've already described as a key role for political information
going through him.
HUMPHRYS: No, I said all information, not
political information, everything - the lot.
TAYLOR: All information. When you're in Number
Ten and you're the Prime Minister all information could be political
information. I think there'd be a lot of complaints if we had a chief of staff
who was being asked to do political activity, and that person and was a Civil
Servant.
HUMPHRYS: Aright.
TAYLOR: So I think it's right to have the lines
drawn but I don't think you should be critical when we're saying: right, this
is a political role and somebody who's a political appointee is actually going
to fill it.
HUMPHYRS: Let's look at the role of MPs then.
Your MPs specifically now, you talk of giving them more responsibility and yet
we learn this morning that you're treating MPs now, Labour MPs as though
they're all sort of potential miscreants. You have this vast computer in
Millbank in which their names are entered, and if they've done anything naughty
that appears against their name. What's going on here - this is thekind of
thought police at work isn't it?
TAYLOR: Well, it would be if it was as you'd
actually described it. I don't think we're all plotted into there and
tracked. It's an electronic library, so if you put anybody's name in there, if
you feed any name in there then you will get a reference sheet about what
they've been saying.
HUMPHRYS: Or doing. I mean, you know, Hugh Kerr
MP heckled Tony Blair at a private reception. For heaven's sake!
TAYLOR: Well, if it's an electronic library,
it's in there, people can actually use the Data Protection legislation to find
out what's on about them. I don't think that it's unreasonable to keep records
of what we, as members say. Very often we want to know ourselves what we've
said on other occasions. We want to look at what other people have said.
HUMPHRYS: Do you know what they've got on you
then?
TAYLOR: No, but I presume thay've got everything
that I have said on the record.
HUMPHRYS: And what about those things you've said
off the record as well?
TAYLOR: I think that's very wise, because it
means that if colleagues or people on television programmes are saying: Ann
Taylor said this on such a date, it can actually be checked, and I think that's
very wise of us to keep that.
HUMPHRYS: But you know, perhaps at one stage in
your career, heaven forfend, but you might have said something a bit less than
generous about your leader, about the Prime Minister. I mean that might be
there - a bit worrying isn't it?
TAYLOR: I think that we should all be prepared
to stand by anything that we've said, and I don't think that there is the sort
of sinister connotations that everybody here is talking about.
HUMPHRYS: 1984.
TAYLOR: I think it is important that we have
things on record and this is the modern way of keeping things on record. It's
an electronic library for goodness sake. Surely everything that I say, all my
press releases, all the parliamentary questions I answer should be there. I
don't really see what's wrong with that.
HUMPHRYS: Ann Taylor, thank you very much indeed.
...oooOooo...
|